TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 730X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the job worker - liability of job worker is to pay duty - Held that:- As the appellant has filed undertaking to pay duty on the activity of galvanization done by the job worker, therefore, the appellant is liable to pay duty for the period May, 2007 to January, 2010 - demand confirmed. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - E/1904/2011-Ex (DB) - FINAL ORDER NO. 63364/2018 - Dated:- 24-10-2018 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) and Mr.Anil G.Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Present for the Appellant: Shri J.P.Kaushik, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Shri G.M.Sharma, AR ORDER The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the demand of duty of ₹ 6,12,98,141/- along with interest h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld that galvanization does not amount to manufacture. Therefore, the demand is barred by limitation, as the show cause notice was issued to the appellant by invoking the extended period of limitation on 4.3.2010. For the period May, 2007 till January 2010, the contention of the appellant is that the job worker has undertaken the activity of galvanization and the product manufactured by the appellant was exempt for payment of duty, therefore, the appellant was entitled to avail Notification No.214/86-CE. In that circumstance, the job worker was required to pay duty on galvanization activity. Therefore, no duty can be demanded from the appellant, consequently, no penalty is imposable on the appellant. 4. On the other hand, Ld. AR supported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the appellant is liable to ay duty. As the appellant has concealed the vital fact from the department, therefore, malafide of the appellant is proved, in that circumstance, the appellant is liable to pay duty for the period from February, 2005 to April, 2007 by invoking extended period of limitation. Accordingly, the duty along with interest is confirmed and penalty equal to duty is also confirmed for the period February, 2005 to April, 2007. 8. With regard to issue No.(ii), we find that the appellant has filed undertaking in terms of Notification No.214/86-CE to the department for payment of duty on the activity of galvanization by the job workers. Therefore, the appellant cannot be take an excuse that as their product is exempt from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
